Jailbreak

Cydia

One California man was so bothered by Apple’s over-the-air iOS update mechanism that he decided to take Apple CEO Tim Cook to a small claims court. The suit, titled “Mark David Menacher vs. Tim Cook” by the San Diego County brand of California’s Superior Court, seeks a method to remove automatically downloaded iOS update files, specifically the new iOS 7 binary and 50% in remuneration.

For those of you who didn’t already know, the over-the-air iOS update mechanism is a feature designed to make it easier for iOS device owners to keep their phone or tablet up to date with the latest revision of Apple’s mobile operating system. The over-the-air updates are automatically downloaded when an iOS device is plugged and connected to WiFi, though users must still grant explicit permission to install the new software.

Although the automatic update system has been active since the release of iOS 6, Apple’s redesign of iOS 7 has prompted many users to hold off on the upgrade. This means that the automatically downloaded installation file, which weighs in at more than one gigabyte and cannot be removed by the user may end up decreasing a device’s available memory by up to 15% with no way to recover the storage space.

In a statement obtained by the folks over at CNET, Menacher wrote the following regarding the matter:

Apple's disregard for customer preferences in relation to iOS7 is corporate thuggery. Steve Jobs was reportedly rough on company employees in pursuit of happy customers, but Tim Cook apparently cultivates a culture of contempt for customer satisfaction in pursuit of corporate profits. It is a policy that will eventually fail.

We’ll have to see what comes of the whole ordeal but it likely won’t be much at all.

good. forcing an update on people like that is a retarded thing to do. even if it doesn't automatically install it, it still downloads a 3gb file, taking up space on your phone that you can't get back unless you install it. not to mention that some people have very limited pre-paid internet data, even on wifi (like i used to) and downloading a 3gb file, not to mention that there's probably like 5 other iphones in a house with a fairly large family, would probably burn through $150 on some networks. *cough*telstra

You can't download the update on a cellular network. It will not let you. This lawsuit is just stupid. Also this guy has probably never met Tim or Steve and his whole law suit is based on assumptions of how they run/ran Apple.

I Agree and hope more law suits happen since the courts are the only way to stop Apple from believing they own our phones after we buy them. We should be able to choose what we do with our own equipment, On a connected topic, in many cases Apple will not approve an updated app many times unless the user must update to IOS x latest, an app in the store used for a long time on 6x may be updated to 7x only now if deleted and then try to instal or your friend wants to try it finds out they must update. It bugs me too it's my phone Apple.

I didn't know that the file auto downloaded. That does seem stupid. However, if this guy knew a minimum of tort law he would know his case against Cook personally will never have any chance of winning. It shouldn't even make it to the judge. There's no basis here to "pierce the corporate veil" and go after Cook personally.

I didn't know that the file auto downloaded. That does seem stupid. However, if this guy knew a minimum of tort law he would know his case against Cook personally will never have any chance of winning. It shouldn't even make it to the judge. There's no basis here to "pierce the corporate veil" and go after Cook personally.

Some people are just Crazy and just plain sue happy just to make a buck.

Is 16 Gb of memory really worth 100 bucks. Why not just have all the phones built with at least 32 GB and then offer 64 for additional cost? It seems like with the new softwares and photo/video capabilities 16 GB phones fill up in a hurry.

Wow - ok - I think I'll sue Jon Ives because he insists we see a video clip of him instead of the real thing at Keynote Events. That really chaps my hide and I don't like it. 😏

This is ridiculous....

You're not forced to watch the video, you're forced to download the software unless you've already used up your phones memory. I see what you were trying to do but you had a horrible example.

Originally Posted by spectrum

Is 16 Gb of memory really worth 100 bucks. Why not just have all the phones built with at least 32 GB and then offer 64 for additional cost? It seems like with the new softwares and photo/video capabilities 16 GB phones fill up in a hurry.

People want a cheaper option. 8gb is ridiculous now. They shouldn't even build an 8 gb phone

They at least need to give education and businesses the option to disable automatic updates or Ota updates all together with mobile device managements. That way we know it's stable, managed devices will be able to update without any problems occurring.

I Agree and hope more law suits happen since the courts are the only way to stop Apple from believing they own our phones after we buy them. We should be able to choose what we do with our own equipment, On a connected topic, in many cases Apple will not approve an updated app many times unless the user must update to IOS x latest, an app in the store used for a long time on 6x may be updated to 7x only now if deleted and then try to instal or your friend wants to try it finds out they must update. It bugs me too it's my phone Apple.

I Agree and hope more law suits happen since the courts are the only way to stop Apple from believing they own our phones after we buy them. . It bugs me too it's my phone Apple.

Not really. Unless you pay full price for it. If you paid $649/$749/$849 for it - then you own it and I'm with you 100%. If you paid the subsidized price of $199/$299/$399 - then you don't own it until after the 2 year contract period.

This is something so easily forgotten around here.

Though - the "owner" in the contract period is your "carrier" - not really Apple anymore.. So your point regains some strength when looking at it from that perspective.

Not really. Unless you pay full price for it. If you paid $649/$749/$849 for it - then you own it and I'm with you 100%. If you paid the subsidized price of $199/$299/$399 - then you don't own it until after the 2 year contract period.

This is something so easily forgotten around here.

Though - the "owner" in the contract period is your "carrier" - not really Apple anymore.. So your point regains some strength when looking at it from that perspective.

I disagree that the carrier owns it. You can sell it on eBay and get more for it than the subsidized price. You just don't get full functionality until the contract is over.

I disagree that the carrier owns it. You can sell it on eBay and get more for it than the subsidized price. You just don't get full functionality until the contract is over.

People sell on eBay before contract is over to their own peril. If your buyer gets wind it's still in contract - it will cause them and you headaches. The higher price on eBay is understood by the buyer to be a fully unlocked and contract free phone. Many an eBay complaint case has been opened and won against sellers who try and get greedy by selling a locked phone - no matter what you write in the description.

It's a giant hassle for your buyer to get it unlocked (legally) to use with their own other GSM carrier. In contract, locked, "full retail price" phones is something "tolerated" by buyers more these days (because of so many illegal unlock services available getting them out of the hassle of calling AT&T for an unlock)- though I'm not sure why it's tolerated so much. I would never pay the "unlocked/contract free" price for a phone still in contract. You also risk your buyer having their phone 'blacklisted'. iPhone buyers on eBay don't read their descriptions well and don't always understand what they're buying.

Just because you "can sell" them / doesn't mean you own them - legally speaking. It's just too large a "racket" now that the carriers can't fight it. But the user agreements very specifically forbid selling phones in contract period. So though "not illegal" - its unethical. But let's not let the thread degrade.

Is 16 Gb of memory really worth 100 bucks. Why not just have all the phones built with at least 32 GB and then offer 64 for additional cost? It seems like with the new softwares and photo/video capabilities 16 GB phones fill up in a hurry.

I've found the opposite except for the case of professionals or those with limited data plans. I previously needed atleast 32-64gb to deal with photos/music/video, but now I use spotify and only store the songs I really really like locally. My photos are all backed up to both bitcasa and google, same with my video.

Due to this i've now dropped to buying only 16gb since the only way i've ever filled my device at this stage is with games I download then either finish and never delete, or never play.

I partially agree, we should be able to choose if we want the OTA update daemon to run or not. I have it shut off so it's not a problem for me.

I prefer to update my phones manually anyway. Ever since Cook, the paranoid over security of Apple iOS has become overbloated. What if a person really wanted to downgrade to an earlier iOS? If we can do this with our Apple Laptops and PCs, why not our Phones. I don't WANT iOS 7 yet, all of my apps work great and so far there is only one that absolutely requires iOS 7 to be updated.

We should have THAT CHOICE - We are the ones who buy iPhones, we should have full choice of what IOS we want to run, especially on Older Devices. Not all of us can afford to buy a new device every six months, we have to keep our devices in working order.

Not really. Unless you pay full price for it. If you paid $649/$749/$849 for it - then you own it and I'm with you 100%. If you paid the subsidized price of $199/$299/$399 - then you don't own it until after the 2 year contract period.

This is something so easily forgotten around here.

Though - the "owner" in the contract period is your "carrier" - not really Apple anymore.. So your point regains some strength when looking at it from that perspective.

Your wrong, you own the phone after 6 months in the subsidized contract agreement. This is why the agreement explictly states that if you cancel after the first 30 Days and before the 6 months you must return the device. The device is paid for after 6 months not 2 years, they just lock you in a 2 year agreement in order to make more money over a longer period of time. I don't know why people jump to assume that you don't own the phone untill the contract date is up but that is wrong.

Your wrong, you own the phone after 6 months in the subsidized contract agreement. This is why the agreement explictly states that if you cancel after the first 30 Days and before the 6 months you must return the device. The device is paid for after 6 months not 2 years, they just lock you in a 2 year agreement in order to make more money over a longer period of time. I don't know why people jump to assume that you don't own the phone untill the contract date is up but that is wrong.

That's fine. But at least 6 months. What I was correcting was the false notion held by 99% of folks that they own their phones immediately. But thanks for the clarification about 6 months. I'm still a little suspect of your numbers - because after 6 months they will NOT unlock the phone.. clearly communicating - you do NOT own it.. Or so it seems.